Bigfoot range and population speculation thread.

[hiflier]

15 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

Does anyone here have a handle on the percent of total sightings reported that report a sasquatch on all fours? One percent, two percent, one-tenth of one percent? I'd welcome the truth, whatever it may be, but I just can't imagine the total number of reports of a sasquatch on all fours being anything more than the quickest of blips on a screen.

 

Has anyone done this analysis that can provide some verifiable information?

 

In the late John Willison Green's database there are a bit over 4.000 entries. Of those, 40 reports describe a creature on all fours so, a little less than 1%. Don't know about the BFRO as I didn't check there (though 6 of those 40 reports were sourced from the BFRO) - or our own BFF's SSR database. Only a fraction of the 40 mentioned the encounter as being brief- one specifically 6-15 seconds. A couple were at night like midnight or 3am. Most though were witnessed in good light with a time of duration from brief to minute to a quarter hour up to a half hour. One would think there would be little in the way of misidentification for at least the longer durations of a minute or more?   

[guyzonthropus]

SWW- I would swear I've read that account somewhere, or at least one very very similar to it.

[Twist]

 

7 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

Language is important and what you said in this statement above is totally false. I said that if it was an event I was witnessing, rather than a fleeting glimpse, I would never make that mistake. I find it rather curious you left that qualification out.

 

Even in this response you state you would never make a mistake.   I bolded it for you.   So you declare yourself infallible.  In you own words,  you "would never make that mistake"   Throw in our out all the qualifiers you want, you have declared you WOULD NEVER make that mistake.  There is nothing I can discuss with you on this topic if you consider yourself incapable of making a mistake.  I'm not taking a jab at you, I was trying to avoid the subject altogether going further yet here I am responding again.....  

[MIB]

Oh.  Well, you can avoid me, too, because I would not make that mistake, either.   There are 3 options: "clearly bigfoot", "clearly bear", and "I'm not sure."   You appear to be unwilling to accept that some of us will simply say we're not sure when we're not sure.   Why is that?  What sort of disingenuous trap are you trying to set, and why?

 

MIB

Edited January 15, 2018 by MIB

[Twist]

^ Who are you talking to ? 

[wiiawiwb]

Twist, if you can't tell the difference between a walking sasquatch and a walking black bear during an event, not a fleeting glimpse as I've differentiated, then I wish you all the best out in the woods.

Edited January 15, 2018 by wiiawiwb

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Properly addressing the question of whether significant numbers of people are misidentifying bears for sasquatch requires assessment of the report data, along with certain aspects of the human mind. Simply claiming that you personally wouldn’t make a misidentification, and using it in support of people in general not making misidentifications is erroneous, as people may differ. 

[Twist]

23 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

Twist, if you can't tell the difference between a walking sasquatch and a walking black bear during an event, not a fleeting glimpse as I've differentiated, then I wish you all the best out in the woods.

 

  I'll take any good wishes I'm given in regards to my time in the woods.  Camping is one of my favorite activities.  

[SWWASAS]

20 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

SWW- I would swear I've read that account somewhere, or at least one very very similar to it.

It was either at a Portland Hopsquatch event or one of the Conferences I have attended.     I have been at several conferences that have a town hall thing where people tell about their encounters.   So you could have been at the same event I was or the witness might have been to another conference and told his story.   The fact that it was an Oregon Lake or reservoir makes it likely it was told someplace in this area.    That face to face encounter would have made a believer out of most.  I recall the man telling the story so it I heard it directly from him somehow.      Certainly the story is interesting enough that some BF blog could have picked it up and retold it for you to read too.    

Edited January 15, 2018 by SWWASAS

[Talmadge Mooseman]

A more educated researcher than I estimates 2 million BF in North America.  A shocking number for most.

 

Based on the fact that I have been doing this only a couple of years, and I almost always see stick structures wherever I go (mostly Wisconsin), IF these structures

are made by the creature, say, 75% of the time, then I'd say the number being in the millions is quite possible.

 

 

[NathanFooter]

On 3/8/2018 at 3:12 PM, Talmadge Mooseman said:

A more educated researcher than I estimates 2 million BF in North America.  A shocking number for most.

 

Based on the fact that I have been doing this only a couple of years, and I almost always see stick structures wherever I go (mostly Wisconsin), IF these structures

are made by the creature, say, 75% of the time, then I'd say the number being in the millions is quite possible.

 

 

 

 That number is not even realistic, we would have likely happened upon a truckload of bodies by now.    

 

 There is almost no data for Sasquatch being responsible for stick structures ( bigfoot tracks under a structure or a bigfoot being spotted building a structure ).

[cmknight]

2 million may be a tad bit high, but I think that if you take in the total land mass of North America, it really isn't an impossible number if you think about it. 24.71 million km^2 / 2 million = 1 per 12.355 km^2. Taking into account family groups, and concentrations in areas humans don't normally go to, I think it's feasible. 

[ShadowBorn]

I happen to agree with NathanFooter. It seems that just in the state of Michigan the population sees to be very smell and not that frequent. If these tree structures do appear it seems that they wanted the person to find them and if they are not being seen built then this could mean either one or two things. And that is they were created either by the creatures them selves or they were hoaxed. In my in site  I am going with what I have encountered and not with myself being hoaxed. If I was being hoaxed the perpetrators would have been known by now. But there are way to many things that I just cannot explain in my encounters. But prints I have found.

 

In my honest opinion I believe the population to be way too small and that we may be encountering the same creatures over and over as they have migrated their way through our forested areas. The way to prove this is by their prints  and see if they leave an I.D. in their prints that can be matched in other parts of the States of the US.

[Talmadge Mooseman]

Two million is not that great of a number when you are talking about remote areas of land masses as large as the US and Canada...even Mexico qualifies.

 

It is an interesting point about the stick structures.  If Bigfoot isn't making them, then what is?  It seems to be the only thing left because there are too many of them too

remote to be man-made.  Some of these structures involved trees so large it would take special machinery to haul in those areas and snap those trees.

 

To me, the lowly hoop, with the top tucked under a log is the least likely structure to be caused by nature.

[Mendoza]

A lot of what's being discussed in this thread was discussed and debated at length in another thread here:  http://bigfootforums.com/topic/54895-how-to-mathematically-separate-the-wheat-from-the-chaff/?page=1

 

I highly recommend that anyone interested in these aspects of the field read through that thread.  My primary contribution was a research paper that touched on Bigfoot's population distribution, black bear misidentification, etc.